Twisting my simple question into a "challenge" doesn't change anything. I asked a question that should be simple to answer for most people, yet I know that Dr. Richardson can not answer it. His appearance on this thread several times since I first asked the question, without answering it, proves my point. Dr. Richardson lacks the practical experience to really speak as an expert anyhow, and he said as much to George very early in this thread. As I and others have stated before, Dr. Richardson's "challenge" is an empty one and impossible to answer simply because there is no way to implement it in a real-world setting where outside factors wouldn't pollute the outcome, either positive or negative, with regard to the validity of the polygraph. He might as well "challenge" someone to light a candle in an airless vacuum as "challenge" the polygraph community to prove anything with regard to countermeasures under staged, artificial conditions. Those of us who have actual experience discovering and unmasking countermeasures while conducting hundreds or even thousands of polygraph exams know that anyone attempting countermeasures is rolling the dice. Can we always detect countermeasures? Of course not. But the fact that we don't answer an empty and ridiculous challenge by someone posing as an expert (despite what he says) doesn't change the fact that if you try your luck in a polygraph exam, don't be surprised when you are caught.

Twisting my simple question into a "challenge" doesn't change anything. I asked a question that should be simple to answer for most people, yet I know that Dr. Richardson can not answer it. His appearance on this thread several times since I first asked the question, without answering it, proves my point. Dr. Richardson lacks the practical experience to really speak as an expert anyhow, and he said as much to George very early in this thread. As I and others have stated before, Dr. Richardson's "challenge" is an empty one and impossible to answer simply because there is no way to implement it in a real-world setting where outside factors wouldn't pollute the outcome, either positive or negative, with regard to the validity of the polygraph. He might as well "challenge" someone to light a candle in an airless vacuum as "challenge" the polygraph community to prove anything with regard to countermeasures under staged, artificial conditions. Those of us who have actual experience discovering and unmasking countermeasures while conducting hundreds or even thousands of polygraph exams know that anyone attempting countermeasures is rolling the dice. Can we always detect countermeasures? Of course not. But the fact that we don't answer an empty and ridiculous challenge by someone posing as an expert (despite what he says) doesn't change the fact that if you try your luck in a polygraph exam, don't be surprised when you are caught.

Unfortunately, you appear to have entirely missed the import of Dr R's challenge. It was not a simple endeavour as you surreptitiously infer. It was a challenge to the industry. The results of which couldimpact seriously and negatively on the p/g industry finally and forever.

It is precisely that hidden danger that the industry cannot afford to face. Thus it remains silent,whilst you shout out hysterically at the danger.

Unfortunately, you appear to have entirely missed the import of Dr R's challenge. It was not a simple endeavour as you surreptitiously infer. It was a challenge to the industry. The results of which couldimpact seriously and negatively on the p/g industry finally and forever.

It is precisely that hidden danger that the industry cannot afford to face. Thus it remains silent,whilst you shout out hysterically at the danger.

1904, one of the reasons that I grew tired of this forum is that inexperienced people like yourself post on here as if they actually know what they are talking about. I have always welcomed responses from open-minded people who have something more than other people's rehashed phrases to contribute. I didn't "miss the point" at all. I fully understand Dr. Richardson's "point." It is the impossibility of implementing a proper real-world examination under the conditions he proposes that makes his "challenge" an empty one. Lab studies and public displays simply can not replicate real-world conditions.

The polygraph community does not feel the need to "prove" itself. We know that the polygraph process is not perfect. I myself have admitted that on many occasions. But despite the fact that it is not perfect, it continues to be used, and it will continue to be used until something better comes along.

My question, which you call a "challenge," is a simple one. For Dr. Richardson it is obviously a challenging question which he really can not answer because it is a no-win situation for him.

With regard to countermeasures, I guess you missed my point. No polygrapher can always detect countermeasures. Those of us who have conducted hundreds or even thousands of polygraph exams know that at some point in our careers we have probably been "beaten." But we also know that on many, many occasions we have in fact detected and unmasked countermeasures, effectively ending the career prospects of those people dishonest or, admittedly, simply afraid enough to try them. In the end, it's simply a matter of trying to pass the polygraph cleanly, or rolling the dice with countermeasures. Feeling lucky?

As a polygrapher, with all of your experience, did you ever catch an examinee using countermeasures, and if so, how did you know prior to any admission by the examinee?

...

Dr. Richarson responded:

Quote:

LieBabyCryBaby,

Countermeasures are of little interest to me personally. I knew about the time I graduated from DoDPI polygraph examiner training some fifteen years ago that lie detection had little to no diagnostic validity IN THE ABSENCE OF EXAMINEE COUNTERMEASURE APPLICATION. My interest in this challenge is simply to demonstrate to those of you who do believe that there is some diagnostic value in what you do for a living that you can be beat any day of the week by any number of people with minimal training. Again, what personally interests and saddens me is that this nonsense is used even if we existed (which we don't) in an environment in which there was an absence of viable and readily applied countermeasures.

Unsatisfied with that response, you've repeated, with much innuendo, that you and he "both know why" he "failed to respond" to your "simple question." 1904 invited you to "spare us the ongoing agony of anticipation and simply state what you think / know his answer to be?" You responded:

Didn't you read what I said? He really can't answer that question. The truth would make him look like a fool, while anything else would be just another cop out.

Now that's an evasive answer! 1904 clearly read what you wrote. Did you read what he wrote?

As for the polygraph community's professed ability to detect polygraph countermeasures, the fact remains that no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to detect countermeasures at better than chance levels of accuracy. To this day, there is not a single journal article or book chapter on how to reliably detect countermeasures. There is no evidence that actually using countermeasures increases the risk that one will be accused of using them, or that not using them lessens that risk. (I myself was falsely accused of using polygraph countermeasures at a time when I didn't even know what they were.)

Earlier this year, in a videotaped polygraph examination conducted for evidentiary purposes, no less a polygraph expert than Dr. Louis I. Rovner, Ph.D. tried to discourage countermeasure use by falsely claiming that the information on AntiPolygraph.org is "bogus," even though he later testified under oath in court that it "is so thorough and complete it's just breathtaking how good and accurate the information is." Rovner further felt the need to slander me personally (among other things, he falsely suggested to his examinee that I am a fugitive from justice) and to falsely tell the examinee that the irrelevant questions were "control" questions (a simplistic ruse that would fool only the most simpleminded of examinees). Dr. Rovner's recent behavior does not bespeak one who is confident of his ability to detect polygraph countermeasures.

If using polygraph countermeasures (which the polygraph community has no demonstrated ability to detect) is a "roll of the dice," submitting to a pseudoscientific polygraph "test" without the protection of countermeasures is a roll of the Russian roulette wheel.

And this is precisely why the polygraph cannot be trusted. No technique, in any discipline, is more accurate than the laboratory setting and because of the unique nature of lab setting, field analytics are often much worse than their lab counterparts.

In the lab, researchers can (usually) control all of the potential confounders that can be encountered. This reduces variability and makes things more accurate.

Once you move into the field, you increase variability which always decreases accuracy. It is a scientific fact. Trust me on this, I spent the first part of my career with the EPA coming up with statistical methods for recalibrating soil contaminant field analytics with lab methods. Field analytics will always be worse than their lab counterparts as it is the nature of the beast.

With human subjects and psychometric testing, this becomes even more important. Since all of the formats for polygraph testing are developed in the lab under controlled conditions, it is statistical certainty that they will become less accurate once applied in the field under a variety of conditions, examiners, examinees, etc.

Hence, your characterization of polygraph lab studies being worthless demonstrates the folly of using them into the field because they will always be less accurate.

And this is precisely why the polygraph cannot be trusted. No technique, in any discipline, is more accurate than the laboratory setting and because of the unique nature of lab setting, field analytics are often much worse than their lab counterparts.

In the lab, researchers can (usually) control all of the potential confounders that can be encountered. This reduces variability and makes things more accurate.

Once you move into the field, you increase variability which always decreases accuracy. It is a scientific fact. Trust me on this, I spent the first part of my career with the EPA coming up with statistical methods for recalibrating soil contaminant field analytics with lab methods. Field analytics will always be worse than their lab counterparts as it is the nature of the beast.

With human subjects and psychometric testing, this becomes even more important. Since all of the formats for polygraph testing are developed in the lab under controlled conditions, it is statistical certainty that they will become less accurate once applied in the field under a variety of conditions, examiners, examinees, etc.

Hence, your characterization of polygraph lab studies being worthless demonstrates the folly of using them into the field because they will always be less accurate.

I noticed this, too.

A test regarding the ability of examiners to detect countermeasures would be, in LBCB's opinion, worthless because real world stress cannot be duplicated in the lab.

So, do they base their belief that the polygraph is accurate on a lack of clinical evidence? Because their results are consistent with their "gut feelings"? I would assume it is easy to support any point of view if you disregard any clinical evidence that does not support your opinion, and tout that which does.

Unfortunately, you appear to have entirely missed the import of Dr R's challenge. It was not a simple endeavour as you surreptitiously infer. It was a challenge to the industry. The results of which couldimpact seriously and negatively on the p/g industry finally and forever.

It is precisely that hidden danger that the industry cannot afford to face. Thus it remains silent,whilst you shout out hysterically at the danger.

1904, one of the reasons that I grew tired of this forum is that inexperienced people like yourself post on here as if they actually know what they are talking about. I have always welcomed responses from open-minded people who have something more than other people's rehashed phrases to contribute. I didn't "miss the point" at all. I fully understand Dr. Richardson's "point." It is the impossibility of implementing a proper real-world examination under the conditions he proposes that makes his "challenge" an empty one. Lab studies and public displays simply can not replicate real-world conditions.

The polygraph community does not feel the need to "prove" itself. We know that the polygraph process is not perfect. I myself have admitted that on many occasions. But despite the fact that it is not perfect, it continues to be used, and it will continue to be used until something better comes along.

My question, which you call a "challenge," is a simple one. For Dr. Richardson it is obviously a challenging question which he really can not answer because it is a no-win situation for him.

With regard to countermeasures, I guess you missed my point. No polygrapher can always detect countermeasures. Those of us who have conducted hundreds or even thousands of polygraph exams know that at some point in our careers we have probably been "beaten." But we also know that on many, many occasions we have in fact detected and unmasked countermeasures, effectively ending the career prospects of those people dishonest or, admittedly, simply afraid enough to try them. In the end, it's simply a matter of trying to pass the polygraph cleanly, or rolling the dice with countermeasures. Feeling lucky?

LBCB,In the same vein as Dr R's old posts. I posted: "I can teach anyone to pass a p/g test"And I can teach you too as you are either in doubt or denial.

You evidently are the one with a lack of experience, because you still haven't achieved the experience and maturity to admit that p/g = BS baffles brains.

You have contradicted yourself btw - in one breath you concede, ".. the p/g is not perfect...and we have been beaten.....but we'll keep on using it till something better comes along" - In that case, why not simply use your dice. Make it user-friendly for subjects.

And yes, I do feel lucky. You can test me anytime. $1000 says I beat you every time.

[LBCB,In the same vein as Dr R's old posts. I posted: "I can teach anyone to pass a p/g test"And I can teach you too as you are either in doubt or denial.

You evidently are the one with a lack of experience, because you still haven't achieved the experience and maturity to admit that p/g = BS baffles brains.

You have contradicted yourself btw - in one breath you concede, ".. the p/g is not perfect...and we have been beaten.....but we'll keep on using it till something better comes along" - In that case, why not simply use your dice. Make it user-friendly for subjects.

And yes, I do feel lucky. You can test me anytime. $1000 says I beat you every time.

1904, you and others like you will always have the last word on this forum. You bore me because you have nothing substantial to say. You can always make big claims--which are unfounded because you have no experience with conducting polygraph exams--and you will never have to back them up because no one is interested in your or Dr. Richardson's "challenge." The polygraph community has no interest in you personally, and we know that Dr. Richardson hasn't got a leg to stand on either. What we do have is that we are already comfortably entrenched in the system with no reason to leave and nothing to prove.

It is not a contradiction to admit that the polygraph process is not perfect, either. But admitting that is far from conceding that the polygraph should be abolished. Most polygraph examinees will continue to pass the polygraph without countermeasures, and the world is not very interested in this forum. When people post on any forum like this, they tend to develop the naive attitude that the rest of the world actually cares about what they have to say. It's like a child's egocentric view of the world--the juvenile view that whatever I think and do is the center of the universe, and everything else revolves around me. Nothing you or I say on this forum will change anything. That's why, as I've said before, it is kind of sad that George Maschke would waste so much of his time with managing this website. When he is on his deathbed and thinking about what he did with life, isn't it sad that he will have to accept that he spent so much of his life on this worthless forum? I think so.

I know that Dr. Richardson can not answer my question because he is simply a "poser" who a few misguided people on this forum have put on a pedestal and accepted as an expert. My question will remain unanswered because he can not answer it, and because he probably feels it is as worthless to attempt an answer as the polygraph community feels it is to respond to his empty "challenge."

Now, go ahead and have the last word, 1904. You have no experience or expertise to speak of, yet you will undoubtedly continue to pretend. You're nothing special at all, "sunshine."

Polygraph testing is firmly entrenched in our system. A few years ago, slavery was firmly entrenched in the south. Recently, facism was firmly entrenched in a few nations. Fortunately, visionaries like George took a stand and rooted out these evils.

There was certainly no hue and cry in the south to eliminate slavery. Few Germans opposed facism at the time. Both of these practices were quite profitable for some.

Now, most people actually believe polygraph testing works and is justified. I conceed your point is a good one Sir.

...What we do have is that we are already comfortably entrenched in the system with no reason to leave and nothing to prove.

Indeed, polygraphers are comfortably entrenched within federal, state, and local government agencies. But that doesn't mean they have nothing to prove when it comes to countermeasures. Polygraphers, including yourself, want the public to believe that you have the ability to reliably detect polygraph countermeasures. At least to that extent, you've got something to prove. Don't you agree?

Quote:

It is not a contradiction to admit that the polygraph process is not perfect, either. But admitting that is far from conceding that the polygraph should be abolished.

Agreed.

Quote:

Most polygraph examinees will continue to pass the polygraph without countermeasures, and the world is not very interested in this forum. When people post on any forum like this, they tend to develop the naive attitude that the rest of the world actually cares about what they have to say. It's like a child's egocentric view of the world--the juvenile view that whatever I think and do is the center of the universe, and everything else revolves around me.

I don't think anyone posting here suffers from the delusion that this forum is somehow the center of the universe. Polygraphy is an arcane pseudoscience that is of exceedingly little interest whether to the scientific community or to the world community at large.

However, for those whose lives are or have been affected by the pseudoscience of polygraphy, this message board serves as an important forum for open discussion and debate of polygraph issues.

Quote:

Nothing you or I say on this forum will change anything.

Not true. The key thing that's being changed here is public awareness and understanding of polygraphy -- in particular the awareness and understanding of that portion of the population most likely to face polygraph "testing."

Quote:

That's why, as I've said before, it is kind of sad that George Maschke would waste so much of his time with managing this website. When he is on his deathbed and thinking about what he did with life, isn't it sad that he will have to accept that he spent so much of his life on this worthless forum? I think so.

I shall have considerably fewer regrets about having worked to expose and end a pseudoscientific fraud than I should had I spent my days as a practitioner of the same. Instead of fantasizing about my deathbed regrets, perhaps you should contemplate your own?

Quote:

I know that Dr. Richardson can not answer my question because he is simply a "poser" who a few misguided people on this forum have put on a pedestal and accepted as an expert. My question will remain unanswered because he can not answer it, and because he probably feels it is as worthless to attempt an answer as the polygraph community feels it is to respond to his empty "challenge."

You purport to know the answer to your "unanswered" question, so why don't you, as 1904 suggested, "spare us the ongoing agony of anticipation and simply state what you think/know his answer to be?"

To George, Thank you for responding to CB specifically. I could not have put it any better.

To LBCB,You denigrate and scoff at this board and its regulars as being boring...Why then have you been hanging around here for 18 mths ??Just dipping your toes in the water, but not ready to take the plunge yet??

Indeed, polygraphers are comfortably entrenched within federal, state, and local government agencies. But that doesn't mean they have nothing to prove when it comes to countermeasures. Polygraphers, including yourself, want the public to believe that you have the ability to reliably detect polygraph countermeasures. At least to that extent, you've got something to prove. Don't you agree?

I don't think anyone posting here suffers from the delusion that this forum is somehow the center of the universe. Polygraphy is an arcane pseudoscience that is of exceedingly little interest whether to the scientific community or to the world community at large.

However, for those whose lives are or have been affected by the pseudoscience of polygraphy, this message board serves as an important forum for open discussion and debate of polygraph issues.

I shall have considerably fewer regrets about having worked to expose and end a pseudoscientific fraud than I should had I spent my days as a practitioner of the same. Instead of fantasizing about my deathbed regrets, perhaps you should contemplate your own?

You purport to know the answer to your "unanswered" question, so why don't you, as 1904 suggested, "spare us the ongoing agony of anticipation and simply state what you think/know his answer to be?"

No, George, we have nothing to prove to anyone. Because we are entrenched in the system, and because polygraph is so widely used and accepted by so many agencies, why would we feel the need to prove anything? We don't really care what you think, so why should we try to prove anything to you? You failed your FBI polygraph not by simply failing one relevant question on the test, but by failing all of them. That's pretty much unheard of in polygraph, and I've never experienced it myself in all the exams I've conducted. So, you are simply a polygraph failure with no practical experience other than failing a polygraph. Who needs to prove anything to you?

I have no regrets about being a polygraph "practitioner." It gets me a paycheck, and it keeps many of the wrong people from getting into law enforcement. I earn a living this way, which enables me to enjoy many things in life. Can you say that about your obsession with your forum?

Finally, I never puported to know Dr. Richardson's answer. He really doesn't have one, so I could only guess what kind of lame attempt he might make. His ridiculous challenge goes unanswered because it is not worth answering, and my question goes unanswered because he really has no good answer. It's a no-win situation for him.

No, George, we have nothing to prove to anyone. Because we are entrenched in the system, and because polygraph is so widely used and accepted by so many agencies, why would we feel the need to prove anything? We don't really care what you think, so why should we try to prove anything to you? You failed your FBI polygraph not by simply failing one relevant question on the test, but by failing all of them. That's pretty much unheard of in polygraph, and I've never experienced it myself in all the exams I've conducted. So, you are simply a polygraph failure with no practical experience other than failing a polygraph. Who needs to prove anything to you?

I wasn't suggesting that you and your fellow need to prove anything to me. Rather, what I'm suggesting is that if polygraphers, yourself included, want the public to believe that you have the ability to reliably detect polygraph countermeasures, then you do have something to prove. Thus far, the polygraph community has not made a convincing public case for its ability to detect countermeasures.

Quote:

I have no regrets about being a polygraph "practitioner." It gets me a paycheck, and it keeps many of the wrong people from getting into law enforcement. I earn a living this way, which enables me to enjoy many things in life. Can you say that about your obsession with your forum?

Polygraph screening also wrongly keeps many well-qualified, honest people from getting into law enforcement, but I suppose that's no skin off your nose, is it? I haven't made a penny from AntiPolygraph.org. This is a public interest website, not a profit-making concern.

Quote:

Finally, I never puported to know Dr. Richardson's answer....

Can you see how someone reading these posts might have concluded otherwise?

Telling the truth and failing all relevant questions is not unheard of in polygraph testing, particularly when the true answer is no. I’ll not challenge your mind with the simple statistics and psychology behind this Sir. However, I must point out that when polygraph tests are used in employment screening, a fallacious machine often rejects the applicant outright and the real truth is never determined.